Democrats & Liberals: Archives

It seems to me that the whole reason were in afganastan is to defeat terriost organazations. The fact that the president isn’t concerned about the capture of the leader of one of these groups is very scary.

Bleeding heart:

If you think it’s so important and easy to do, why don’t you sneek into Iran kill Bin laden yourself.

You think it is “scary”

You do know that the president has to down play everything about the terrorist, right ? Or are you just running your mouth ? Whether the president is a Dem or Rep he cannot go on TV or Radio and hype Bin laden’s power.

Do you understand how autonomous terrorist cells work ? Sure Bin laden is a target. But, it is highly unlikely that he is making any bombs or driving any suicide missions.

If we’re not going after him, we need to question whether or not Bin Laden actually had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. How much of what we have been told is accurate?

James makes a good point: one thing you won’t see our administration do, and wisely so, is build up the reputation of one of the leaders any more than it is. Marginalize Bin Laden in the new of the world, and then when you do remove him, his downfall doesn’t cause a global retalliation amongst extremists, because even his followers aren’t sure he was still a power.

Whatever our government’s policies and actions, there’s always more going on than what is released in the press. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are allowing Bin Laden to run free for a purpose (or making it seem like he IS free when he’s not), but nothing would surprise me.

As far as Bin Laden as a driving force for fundamentalist extremists…in my opinion he’s hard to dismiss. As long as he’s around, there’s a “Dark Lord Sauron” for the extremists to “follow”, whether he’s doing anything actively or not, he represents their goals and is therefore a symbol of their strength. While he’s free, their fight is not finished.

Our best bet is to toss the glory of Wal-mart into the high desert of Iraq and show them the privileges of being American: inexpensive items and jobs for all the local teenagers! Now there’s something to rally behind…

Apologies for the quick second post, but I just saw Polanco’s post.

If we’re not going after him, we need to question whether or not Bin Laden actually had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. How much of what we have been told is accurate?

I almost laughed aloud. It’s almost to the point where what we’ve been told, accurate or not, doesn’t matter. History is being re-written as we speak.

Who bombed the Trade Center? 19, maybe 20, people, part of a terrorist organization called Al Qaeda (spelling differs).
Who is part of Al Qaeda? Lots of people.
Who do we attack to get justice/revenge/keep Americans safe? Afghanistan, since the Taliban seems to have funded Al Qaeda training camps, and we don’t really like the Taliban’s form of goverment much either.
What about Iraq? Well, firstly, we were told Sadaam and Bin Laden might have been in cahoots, but they weren’t. Then it was about the freedom of the Iraq people. A just cause, but there are lots of just causes that we could assist without blowing a country to pieces.
The War on Terror? Sort of general: like the Cold War. More of a time in history. But at the same time, it’s being used to allow the U.S. to assault anyone it feels is a threat because we’re at war.
What about Iraq now? Could be the oil, could be stability in the middle east, could be America just making sure it’s not caught out later on. Condi Rice said this in an NPR forum: “They attacked us first.”

It’s a strange time. People against violence need to keep speaking out. People against imperialism need to keep speaking out. People who treasure America and its values need to keep speaking out. People who think America should do whatever it takes to stay on top…I dunno. I’d rather die for American beliefs than live by playing by the terrorists’ rules.

This comment seems to confirm the idea tha Bin Laden has been and is in Iran.

James you have a valid point that Osama Bin Laden is not creating bombs or organizing attacks any longer. Yet I still feel capturing him should be a high priority as he, not someone in Iraq, was the one who organized 9/11

I really dont see any need to hammer Bush over that statement. On the other hand, can you imagine if a prominant democrat made similar statements - they would be burned at the stake, politically speaking.

James,

“You do know that the president has to down play everything about the terrorist, right ? Or are you just running your mouth ? Whether the president is a Dem or Rep he cannot go on TV or Radio and hype Bin laden’s power.”

Yet this President was the guy that said that Bin Laden was “enemy #1” and “we are giong to get him dead or alive”.

Or is this is just more retoric?

Stephen, I almost wrote an article about this last night focusing on the words “excellent idea”. What does that mean? “Excellent” vs. what, piss poor idea. And the word “idea”. Sounds like a fanciful way of saying we don’t know where he is, but we have an unverified tip that he might be where someone says he is. Well, that’s not news, is it. That has been the constant state of the situation for years.

Sounds like propaganda to shore up a weakened image caused by years of inability to attack those behind 9/11, to me.

Actually, Stephan, if you’ll read the story printed by the Associated Press…

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050620/D8ARDAMO1.html

it says that the US respect for sovereign nations makes it difficult to get at him.

That’s the reason he’s not going after Bin Laden…not “weak links”.

Now that I know that there are deliberate attempts to misguide us and misinform us…why does ANYONE wonder why I have so little respect for liberals?

I agree with pretty much everything said by Thomas_R. I especially like the “Dark lord Sauron” comparison - the likenesses are interesting.

I don’t like the way Goss is dangling the capture of Bin Laden. He says we need to fix “weak links in the war on terror”, which he claims are “sanctuaries in sovereign nations.” In other words, ‘we don’t quite rule the world yet, so it’s difficult for us to freely enter any country we wish and search for something we could blame them for’. If he has any idea where Bin Laden is, then he should PROVE it, not blame our lack of action on our inability to convince another nation of our intentions. Of course Bush had to lie in order to invade Iraq, so perhaps our lack of credibility has something to do with it.

In my humble little opinion, we do need to capture or kill Bin Laden, even though there are serious questions about whether or not he actually had anything to do with 911, and here’s why:

I consider the criteria for claiming victory in the ‘war on terror’ as follows; Proof of essential security standards met domestically, as in control of the borders, ports, and smooth transference of information between agencies. Secondly, proof of our ability to find and capture or kill anyone in the world, anywhere they hide. If we do that, we win the ‘war on terror’, and Fox news can stop displaying that ugly graphic.

But this is all a fantasy until we replace this administration with some intelligent people who consider the trust of the American people paramount to all acts and agendas of the governing body. This, too, is a fantasy until the American people show some really serious bargaining power. Right now, the governed are just a money crop being harvested by corrupt, weathy, and nefarious “representatives”. Sure, we can say we won’t vote for them, but I wonder what their reaction would be to the threat of every one of us refusing to pay taxes, or vote at all.

Jim T,

Did you ask Stephen if he made an honest mistake before questioning his and most of our respect?

And besides, when has THIS administration started respecting sovereign nations? Iraq was a soveregn nation. Sure they were under sanction, but so have been many other sovereign nations.

I think Geroge in SC may have a point. About the only place we would not go into with or without respect is Iran.

Respect for soveirgn nations my ass. That’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Where the hell was this respect for soveirgn nations when we invaded Iraq?

why does ANYONE wonder why I have so little respect for liberals?

Because your reasons for doing so aren’t objective and your standards aren’t fair. Sure, Stephen summarized the article differently than you read a different summary. Does that mean he’s wrong? Does that mean he was malicious? Not necessarily, but you rush to that assumption.

Even if Stephen was intentionally misleading people, does that mean all Liberals habitually mislead? Nope. I could point to dozens of articles by conservatives, on Watchblog and elsewhere, that I think are intentionally misleading. Have you never seen them? Or do you forgive any mistake by a conservative while remembering every mistake by a conservative?

So, you go to a source different from the source Stephen used and lambaste him for the differences in the reporting, calling it a deliberate attempt to mislead. Then you imply that this “deception” is typical of Liberals but not of Conservatives. Why does ANYONE wonder why I have so little regard for your objectivity?

Now that I know that there are deliberate attempts to misguide us and misinform us…

Correction: Should have been “Or do you forgive any mistake by a conservative while remembering every mistake by a liberal?”

You probably haven’t seen a lot of my posts. Being a moderate, I tend to criticize BOTH liberals and conservatives…especially when the opinions put forth are of the “lunatic fringe” type.

The reason the correction was made by me is that I feel if you are going to start a subject, you should at least have your quotes and facts straight. You should at no time try to mislead or misinform. To do so is a disservice to us all. We cannot clearly debate using erronious facts and fictional figures.

If you start a subject…do your homework.

Lawnboy…

I look forward to hearing your disgust with all Conservative after you read a bit of Ann Coulter.

I agree with Ann Coulter in some of her dialogs and some I certainly do not. Just as I agree with some dialogs of Al Franken and some I certainly do not.

I am, however, finding myself disgusted more and more with both Ann Coulter and Al Franken as they preach nothing but hate. I do not abscribe, nor do I condone, a culture of hate born of political bias. If a subject cannot be debated in a clear headed and rational manner, then, IMO, it doesn’t need to be debated. All we need to do is scream at the top of our lungs at each other.

God, where is William F. Buckley when you really need him?

Osama Bin Ladin is the greatest thing that could happen to the Republicans. As long as he is alive, Bush can dangle the Terrorism Card in every issue. God knows he has nothing left except Terrorism.

Watch the 2006 Election. I expect a “Reports of Terrorists” from the White House…

Jim T,

You’re right, your handle is not one with which I’m familiar. If you are as hard on Conservatives as you are on Liberals, then I’ll have to retract by assumption that you were being unfair. I may have inccurately grouped you with other commenters here.

The reason the correction was made by me is that I feel if you are going to start a subject, you should at least have your quotes and facts straight.

That’s reasonable. However, let’s look at an excerpt for Goss’s conversation from the linked article:

“In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we’re probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.”

“We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.

I read that as incompletely supporting both your interpretation and Stephen’s. Both weak links and sovereignity are mentioned, so I see you reaction to Stephen’s summary as far too strong. He had his quote straight, but not complete.

I am, however, finding myself disgusted more and more with both Ann Coulter and Al Franken as they preach nothing but hate.

This is really interesting to me. I’m obviously liberal, so perhaps I’m just blinded by my bias. However, I see Coulter’s rhetoric and Franken’s rhetoric as qualitatively different.

Coulter’s approach tends to be “I love America and want what’s best for it. Since Liberals disagree with me, they don’t want what’s good for me, so they’re traitors.” Franken’s approach tends to be “A lot of the Conservative media lie to make their points. Here are the lies I’ve found, and I’ll insult repeat offenders.”

I find the approach of “All my opponents are traitors” as much more objectionable than “Some of my opponents are liars”, but because treason is worse than deception, and because Coulter generalizes while Franken specifies.

Do you see them as equivalently bad? Do you disagree with my summaries of their approaches, or do you think each approach as I described it is equally hateful?

Of course, I also think that Franken’s fact-checking (while imperfect) is a hell of a lot better than Coulter’s (which is nearly non-existant).

he knows where bin laden is.. he knows he is dead..

didnt you guys see the clip where bush says we are searching for bin laden and goss gets this look of ‘oh really?’ behind him? he knows we arent looking for him, and there is a good reason. cause we know where he is, dead.

here is the clip:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/03/are-we-really-searching-for-bin-laden.html

bin laden is the boogie man, the ultimate enemy, and one we helped make. and if you think 9/11 happened because we couldnt stop it your retarted, it was the ‘new pearl harbor’ desperately wanted by PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Aldous,

I also expect a little “terror” in the 2006 midterm elections.

The Republicans will dangle the “terrorism” card.

The Democrats will dangle the “Social Security” card.

The Republicans will dangle the “gay marriage” card.

The Democrats will dangle the “We’re in another Viet Nam” card.

The Republicans will dangle the “they don’t have your same morals” card.

The Democrats will dangle the “loss of personal freedoms” card.

And both parties will try to scare the crap out of the voters in the attempt to get them to vote for them…and not their opponent.

Sad to say…the one who will win is the one who can most effectively scare the crap out of the voters.

Lawnboy,

The comparison between Ann Coulter and Al Franken is one of their tenor and intensity.

According to Ann Coulter, all liberals are evil.

According to Al Franken, all conservatives are evil.

I don’t deal well with absolutes. When I hear a diatribe from the far right or from the far left, I immediately ignore it. When I hear someone say that we should nuke Iraq to get rid of the terrorists, I ignore it as the rantings of an extremely ill-informed individual. When I hear the strident call for immediate withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq TODAY…I ignore it as the rantings of another ill informed individual.

When I hear liberals or conservatives painted in broad brush strokes…I ignore it.

ALL Conservates believe that…
ALL Liberals believe that…

Start a sentence off with the above, and you’ve lost me…even if you have a viable point, you’ve lost me.

If you think that I won’t come down hard on a Conservative, you’re wrong. I’ll be down that throat just as quick as I’ll hop down a Liberal’s.

As I said before, I consider myself a moderate. A conservative moderate…but a moderate nonetheless. I have many liberal beliefs, but I feel that I have more conservative beliefs, and that is why I consider myself a moderate conservative.

Jim T,

I guess we just hear Franken differently. I just don’t hear him saying “all conservatives are evil”, but, again, that might just be my bias.

Interesting.

Lawnboy~

I’ll second the notion that you just hear Franken differently.

Wow, I think Al Franken is MUCH kinder to conservatives than Ann Coulter is to liberals. I have heard him go out of his way on many occasions to say that he respects a commentator’s right to their opinion, and then gives information that he believes proves them wrong. He hates liars, but he always backs up his case with evidence. You can disagree with his conclusions, but he gives you enough info to make up your own mind. I have definitely disagreed with him on occasion. He does like to pick on Bill O’Reilly, but that’s because O’Reilly’s feeling are too easily hurt, and he can’t laugh at himself. I have seen Sean Hannity and O’Reilly, on the other hand, spew venom at anyone who disagrees with them.

BTW, I think the sovereign nation we won’t invade to get OBL is probably Saudi Arabia.

Aldous:

“Osama Bin Ladin is the greatest thing that could happen to the Republicans. As long as he is alive, Bush can dangle the Terrorism Card in every issue. God knows he has nothing left except Terrorism.”

Well put, I’ll bet they ride that well into the next generation, and then some. I must ask this though, Who’s this Osama Guy you continue to refer to? Just Kidding
Collectively I see this as a modern day remake of “The Wizard of Oz”:
The Cast:

GWB:
“The Scarecrow” Memorable Line: If I only had a BRAIN.

Condi Rice: “Dorothy” Memorable Line: “There’s no place like home.”

and last but not least
Dick Cheney “Cowardly Lion” Memorable Line: “PUDEMUP, Just PUDEMUP” as he strikes a Boxer’s stance

David R. Remer:

“Stephen, I almost wrote an article about this last night focusing on the words “excellent idea”. What does that mean? “Excellent” vs. what, piss poor idea. And the word “idea”. Sounds like a fanciful way of saying we don’t know where he is, but we have an unverified tip that he might be where someone says he is. Well, that’s not news, is it. That has been the constant state of the situation for years.

Sounds like propaganda to shore up a weakened image caused by years of inability to attack those behind 9/11, to me.”

There is clearly some PR/face saving going on. And it is not just the Prez. I think the military is feeling a little impotent these days with the inability to catch bin Laden, inability to stop the insurgents, inability to recruit (either cons or libs, Aldous) in sufficient numbers, aging inventory of equipment, and pressure from all sides to end this thing. I don’t agree it is their fault completely, but I will refer back to an AP article which proves that we simply were not prepared nor planned for this type of conflict.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for our military and the restrictions and expectations placed on them. It is much worse now than when I was in the Air Force.

JimT-
It’s interesting that to discredit me, you quote source material that backs up my assertions. It’s also interesting that you use an entirely different article to criticize my quotation from the one that I quite plainly linked to in the first part of today’s posting.

I am guilty of botching the position of the quotation marks. I shall forthwith go and correct them.

There, that’s done.

Getting back to the subject…

Why this focus on Osama Bin Laden’s PR? I think that since the collapse of the twin towers he’s gotten all the attention he could ever want. Again, here the government’s actions with Saddam belies the value of their protests. The Bush Administration built Saddam Hussein up to the point where the unwary might have considered him a greater threat to us than he really was. I’m sure Saddam enjoyed the free publicity, right up to the point where the tanks started rolling.

The government should be more concerned with destroying al-Qaeda than starving him of attention. I hardly believe that Osama will go away if this government ignores him.

Briefly…it’s not the differences of Ann Coulter and Al Franken, it’s the similarity that is most important: they are entertainers. At best you could say that Ann Coulter is a little more Howard Sternish (more shocking with what she says) and Al Franken is a little more Jon Stewart (political pundit, but more openly admitting he’s comedic rather than serious).

The saddest part about either are the listeners/readers/viewers who take anything they say seriously without doing some research on their own. Anytime you listen to them, instead of saying, “YEAH!”, think, “Hmmm”. It’s a good start.

Now back to our sponsored discussion….

I am sure we know where he is at and it’s a place extremely difficult to get to. We are not announcing our plans regarding his capture.

Since the Liberal news media broadcasts the precise way to make a bomb, where the US is most vulnerable to attack, how easy it is to get weapons and such through the airport radar, what anti detection methods can be used to hide weapons to take on airplanes and, my favorite, airing in complete detail how easy it is and, how we are astonished that the terrorists have not contaminated our consumables, I think it is a good decision for the administration not to show an optimistic and kill at all costs attitude about Osama.

Stephen,

I have a “thing” for incomplete quotes. So many people have taken advantage of a partial quote to prove their point that I have become skeptical of quotes taken out of context.

I now see that you have corrected that, and for that I salute you.

The first part of the quote shows that the Bush administration has not conducted foreign relations as they should…else why would they have “weak links”?

The second part shows an attempt to patch those very same relations…albeit an attempt that comes a little bit too late in some cases.

I, too, wonder why the push to catch Osama.

Sure, he is directly responsable for 9/11 and he should be held accountable for this affront to humanity.

But will catching Osama cause al-Qaeda to collapse? Not hardly.

Fighting al-Qaeda is like unto fighting the mythical hydra. Chop off one head and another grows back in its place. And it doesn’t help that there are states and regimes that are sympathetic to them (i.e., Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al) and aid and abet them.

So sure…let’s get Osama…and let’s get ready for whoever will replace him.

Loren,

You are probably correct that we wouldn’t go to Saudi Arabia and start a conflict. That would essentially start a religious war I don’t think any adminsitration wants, especially when we have so many troops deployed in Iraq.

I also think George in SC has a good guess in Iran. We don’t want any of that right now. Not as spread out as we are and spending as much as we are.

One of Bin Laden’s goals was to financially ruin the United States. Although I think he has helped, this administration and this congress is trying to do their part too. For those of you that say deficits don’t matter…please study up on some economics and accounting.

Nearly half of our federal budget deficit is held privately now. It use to be that most of our deficit was in the form of T-bills sitting in the Social Security, Medicaire, and other funds. Now that’s only half of the story. I think our growth over the last couple of decades has been due to foreign investment. We were a safe bet as an investment; Small budget deficits (and in some years a surplus), a great history of paying our debts, a strong economy, and a great financial outlook. Some of those things have changed greatly. The Foreign investments will still occur but they will require a better interest rate for thier money. When corporations issue bonds to raise money they have to offer a higher interest rate depending on their debt and financial outlook….same here. What does that mean to us….well, higher interest rates, of course.

I don’t think capturing Bin Laden will change our financial future, at least on the surface. If it reduces folks stomach for terrorism then it could in the long run. Fiscal discipline by our leaders could turn the tide….but I don’t think they have the “stomach” for THAT either.

A few people have mentioned Iran here, which immediately reminded me of Scott Ritter’s heads up about BushCo as regards Iran — indeed very specifically, sometime after June 2005. Speculation on the whereabouts of Bin Laden in Iran could be used as a very good justification for everything from sanctions to actual conflict, no? As some of us are painfully aware, with this administration in control, things don’t necessarily have to be true, they just have to line up conveniently with their pre-set plans to do what they want.
Just a thought.

Zeek:
“Respect for soveirgn nations my ass. That’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Where the hell was this respect for soveirgn nations when we invaded Iraq?”

I think “respect for sovereign nations” must have suffered the same fate as “the facts and the intelligence” that “were being fixed around the policy”.

“why is it the same people who say bush lied about iraq are making the exact same resons for us to invade syria, pakistain, sauldi arabia, iran and china all at the same time?” What liberals support invading any of those countries???

why is it the same people who say bush lied about iraq are making the exact same resons for us to invade syria, pakistain, sauldi arabia, iran and china all at the same time?

another example of dems wanting it both ways. complaining about the same thing they promote.

you complain about us being in 2 countries but you all want to make it 7 countries!

Talk about a straw man! You’re the first person on the thread to bring up Syria, Pakistan, or China, and Iran and Saudi Arabia were discussed in a different context.

Our arguments have a lot of flaws, I’m sure, so do you have any criticisms of statments we’ve actually made in the thread?

Wow.

there have been any number of liberails saying the us should invade those countries.

you can take your time to go back and find the proff.

because we all know with out screenshots or 1st had witness it never happened if it is a point the liberals dont like!

lawnboy

if its not in this post then you never said it?

the point is you want bin laudin and want the us to invade any country he may be in? why was iraq not on that list?

jimmie,

Who the hell is saying we should invade China? I’ve read some stuff on “the China threat,” but never about invading China… Also, I don’t think anyone really cares about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan at the moment. There probably are some people that are saying that we whould invade those places but they are few and far apart.

you complain about us being in 2 countries but you all want to make it 7 countries!

Ok, I’ll attribute Iran to the Democrats, and maybe even North Korea, but all those other places you have mentioned are on the Right Wing’s mind, not the Left’s. In any event, there hypocrisy doesn’t make yours any more acceptable.

Adrienne,

I think “respect for sovereign nations” must have suffered the same fate as “the facts and the intelligence” that “were being fixed around the policy”.

Yeah, those all sort of went the way of the dodo.

BTW, I think the sovereign nation we won’t invade to get OBL is probably Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Loren at June 20, 2005 03:36 PM

Jim T said:

When I hear liberals or conservatives painted in broad brush strokes…I ignore it.

Jim T also said:

Now that I know that there are deliberate attempts to misguide us and misinform us…why does ANYONE wonder why I have so little respect for liberals?

Those are pretty broad brush strokes you used in your comment about liberals! Respectfully try to heed your own guidelines in the future; when I read your generalized comment it made me want to discount everything else you said.

Porter Goss has no ideal what he’s talking about. Did I just miss something? I think it is simly fun for Americans to kill the innocents down in Iraq rather than catching Osama bin Laden. What the F##K Porter Goss is Bull-shitting about? I think he needs a kick up in the ASS!

Chewy The Great

toro tractor, bleeding heart treehugger, and jimmie (I’m guessing you’re all the same person, given the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and language),

My point is that it makes no sense to come into a room and start criticizing people for statements they haven’t even made. Perhaps some Liberals have made those arguments, but no one here in this room, so why should we defend something might never have said, and definitely didn’t say in this context?

It’s just rude, and completely perplexing.

Ach, what am I saying? What’s the use of explaining netiquette and rhetoric anymore?

Stephen,

You’ve got to close that BOLD (or STRONG) tag in your postscript… everything after it is bold.

re: Bin Laden

I thought this was a law enforcement operation? We can’t just go in and snatch Bin Laden. What about warrants? Probable cause? Extradition? Maybe we should just contact his lawyer to arrange for him to turn himself in?

For that matter, what is the real evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11 at all? Will it stand up in court? Will his ACLU lawyers be able to get him acquitted? These are all questions I’d like to know. Especially after the both the ‘Barreta’ (what’s his name, you know) and Michael Jackson trials.

Actually, the more I think on all the excellent points made by the likes of Michael Moore, Dick Durbin, John Conyers, and Nancy Pilosi, the more I think that America is really to blame for 9/11. After all, didn’t we create the conditions for terrorists to want to bomb us? Aren’t we really responsible for all the poverty, corruption, death, and bombing in the middle east anyway?

Charles,

It was a play on the original comment (above) by Stephen.

But, also, admittedly, ya caught me! :-)

jimmie-
Well, first of all, Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are known terrorist havens. Second, I’ve said nothing about China or Saudi Arabia, though I think we should get tough on the former for their trade practices and the latter for their tolerance of islamic extremists.

Regardless, your claim that I would things both ways is wrong. I would want us in one of the three countries above (or at least confronting them) instead of Iraq. In fact, that’s the crux of everything I’ve been saying for more than a year now: we should have been going after the real terrorist sponsors out there, not Iraq! Also, I would have had Afghanistan safely wrapped up and Osama Bin Laden dead or behind bars before I even thought of opening up another front in the War on Terrorism. So I would have had us in one country not seven.

Jim T-
Next time don’t assume a lack of honesty on my part. I’m glad you’re satisfied with my correction.

I think we should catch Osama Bin Laden just to demonstrate that nobody can get away with doing this to us. The message would have been much stronger though, if we weren’t in our third or fourth year of going after him.

I think I can trace my strong opposition to Bush’s reelection from the point where it became obvious that Bush was more interested in going to Iraq than finishing the job in Afghanistan.

The Quote that ends my article, when I first heard it, just dropped my jaw. How could anybody, after 9/11 ever consider the capture or the death of Osama Bin Laden an unimportant matter, of little concern? I think that marks the point at which I lost faith in him as a leader. His further failures with Iraq made things even worse.

The entry above expresses my disgust that they would be walking on eggshells about catching Osama Bin Laden, in the face of having rushed in where angels fear to tread with Iraq. Fact is, Bush spent our diplomatic, military, and economic capital to take the war on terrorism to a country that wasn’t a major supporter of terrorism. I wouldn’t have objected to all the shaking up and defiance if it had been in the service of a good faith campaign against terrorism.

Bush spent our diplomatic, military, and economic capital to take the war on terrorism to a country that wasn’t a major supporter of terrorism

Yes, but thanks to GW, it is now the world’s breeding ground for terrorism.

Toro,

“the point is you want bin laudin and want the us to invade any country he may be in? why was iraq not on that list?”

Iraq didn’t bomb us on 9/11.

ericmonson,

I know you are being sarcastic, but:

“For that matter, what is the real evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11 at all? “

When I guy gets in front of a camera and admits it that’s pretty good evidence. And he has done that SEVERAL times.

“I thought this was a law enforcement operation? We can’t just go in and snatch Bin Laden. What about warrants? Probable cause? Extradition? Maybe we should just contact his lawyer to arrange for him to turn himself in?”

By law enforcement operation what do you mean? I thought this was a war on terrorism?

Bin Laden is an internationally known terrorist, and self-admitted at that. There’s your cause. In addition, he has already admitted to master-minding an ACTUAL attack on American soil and CAN be considered an immenent threat, unlike Sadaam.

In fact, if we weren’t busy in Iraq I think we may have already abducted or killed the idiot. Get real! Red and blue want to see this guy taken out….you know that.

I assume most of the sarcasm is a play on GITMO. Unlike GITMO Bin Laden’s evidence is plentiful. IF you were playing off the earlier GITMO thread…all most of us want is the evidence presented to ensure we don’t have at least one person wrongfully detained.

A man who is not a liberal in his twenties, has no heart. A man who is not a conservative in his forties, has no brain” -Winston Churchill

He was right

Ted,

A man who is not a liberal in his twenties, has no heart.

I guess that means there are a lot of heartless young people these days, eh?

While we’re on the subject of Churchill, let us speak of the virtues of persistence in terms of Gallipoli.

It was a play on the original comment (above) by Stephen.

Oh. If I had put that together, I would have read you earlier comment in a completely different light. Sorry about that.

This whole war on terror was just smoke screen to give the Bush/Cheney Cartel an open checkbook on American tax dollars. I hate when the Republicans say they are conservatives and want to cut taxes. Its all lies. All they ever really wanted is control over the money so they can filter it to a small but rich segment of the population. My taxes have not gone down, infact everything has gone up drastically. The Bush/Cheney Cartel have managed to drive up the cost of just about everything. They are blatantly stealing the cash and should be tried for treason. They will not give the average working/fighting soldier a decent wage, a decent death benefit/life insurance policy, but they handedd millions over to the president of Blackwell Security for Security in IRAQ.Oh by the way the President of Blackwell Security is here in the States while his low paid security workers are in Iraq risking their lives. Typical Republican. Screw the Average worker.

Henry Gagnon,

Your posted opinion is quite thought provoking Its amazing how the criminal mind works. Start a war as a get rich quick scheme. The Blackwell Security president must be revelling in his new found wealth. Moreover, since he would now be among the super rich, he probably pays little or no taxes.

Bush and Cheney may have made similar deals with many major corporation executives so that when they leave office they will be set for life. Of course Cheney doesn’t have to worry because he has all that Halliburton scam money.

Steve
I did not think anyone would even read this. Thanks. I am mystified by the fact that people can’t see what this is all about. It’s all about control over the money and power. Halibuton just got another big contract this week. When will it stop?. Blatantly right in our faces and nobody can stop them. This Cartel stole billions of dollars when Reagan and Bush were President. Clinton shut the Gravy Train off. That is why they went after him so hard. Clinton was a great president. I don’t care what he did in his personal life. Now the Bush/Cheney Cartel has it down to a science. Start a war, scare everyone, anything to justify them funneling that money out of the Government coffers into the the pockets of their friends. I often wonder what is must be like when Bush and Cheney sit down, have a few drinks, and start laughing about how they got away with killing 1800 of our boys in the military just to get them and their family and Friends richer than they all ready are. The Republicans fight any bill that adds benefits to the average fighting soldier, but they are gung ho when it comes to spending billions and billions of dollars for their friends in the Defense and Oil Industry. It tells me they are not sincere about defending our counry, the war on terror is a smoke screen for the big Heist. I am embarrassed that this once great country has become nothing more than a big world wide corporation with a Band of thieves running it.

Churchill was also a lot drunker in his forties

Good One! le sequoit
You know what a Republican is?
Answer:
A former Democrat who benefited from all the good social programs, like public education loans, Scholarships, and Public Schools. but no longer feels the need for them because he does not need them anymore.